- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,747
- 6,598
- 136
9800X3D for meSo you're buying today, right?
This is the very thing I've been railing against chatting with others. Your opinion of the launch doesn't matter if you never intended to buy.So you're buying today, right?
@B-Riz already posted one graph of Baldur's Gate 3 minimum fps improving with 9600X. At this point, at least I don't need further proof that there's some VERY good and VERY practical improvements in Zen 5, enough to warrant an upgrade for some, if not all, Zen 4 users.If these figures are from TYC review, I wouldn't put too much stock into them yet. I'd wait for someone else to verify that.
Some more screens
That's a...non-insignificant gain in front-end bound workloads like browsing. I expected less.
2 decode clusters doing work?
Zen 5 has launched at an unfortunate time. If we had data to see how many users upgraded in the past 6 months from their aging platform to 7800X3D or any other Zen 4 CPU, we would understand why the Zen 5 reception is lukewarm. AMD should've launched Zen 5 in January. This is a market where waiting just hurts you more because a lot of people with the upgrade itch don't wait for impending launch of new CPUs. There's a reason why it's called an "itch". People just want something new and they want it NOW.This is the very thing I've been railing against chatting with others. Your opinion of the launch doesn't matter if you never intended to buy.
Gotta wait for C&C article to finally get some clarity on this.I don't know if the two decode clusters can actually serve a single thread in practice. However, the µop cache does seem to work, in that the machine can do two taken branches per clock from µop cache, which is very useful on it's own when running interpreters.
There are many MT workloads that don’t require that much memory bandwidth.
I am not familiar with video transcoding. Are there transcoders which scale to very high core counts?Video transcoding, source code compilation, ...
All you armchair experts saying Zen5 stinks at gaming, explain the .1% lows away
I am not interested in video games myself, hence never pay attention to that part of CPU reviews. What strikes me as odd is that most reviewers still focus on average FPS a lot. If average FPS were the most important thing to immersion into a game, then the conclusion of all of these reviews should be that all desktop CPUs perform alike: Average FPS are always good enough if screen resolution and game details are chosen according to GPU performance. — From what I understand, what matters additionally, and very much, to the experience of playing a video game are things like low percentiles of FPS, and frame time variance. Yet hardly any reviewer seems to put these prominently into the center of the video game part of CPU reviews.superb .1% lows, sign of a superior CPU
New dual decoder in action? Maybe if SMT is disabled, single core gets both decoders ? Not just decodes, I think dual OP cache also behave the same.Updated screenshots
Its 1.5% at 4k res, higher at lower res
Some more screens
I really want AMD to pull some miracle with an updated IOD that allows the X3D chips to use DDR5-8000 in 1:1 mode.
This is the very thing I've been railing against chatting with others. Your opinion of the launch doesn't matter if you never intended to buy.
Regarding video transcoding, just check out the Handbrake perf tests, which are quite common in CPU reviews.I am not familiar with video transcoding. Are there transcoders which scale to very high core counts?
Source code compilation however: Software build jobs are not scaling well with core count. There are significant single- and lowly threaded sections during a build. The compilation stage scales well if there are respectively many files. But most of the time, developers build incrementally, so there is no good scaling there either.
I added obvious context just to avoid responses like this, and you left that out of the quote.Does this also apply to people parroting negative reviews of Granite Ridge? Nobody said this until people started praising Zen5.
I added obvious context just to avoid responses like this, and you left that out of the quote.
Starting to think that SMT causes more issues in normal use than improvements.
I am not familiar with video transcoding. Are there transcoders which scale to very high core counts?
Well, Handbrake does not scale with core count. This is well known.Regarding video transcoding, just check out the Handbrake perf tests, which are quite common in CPU reviews.
Source code compilation however: Software build jobs are not scaling well with core count. There are significant single- and lowly threaded sections during a build. The compilation stage scales well if there are respectively many files. But most of the time, developers build incrementally, so there is no good scaling there either.
I said there is no high parallelism in common software build jobs.Regarding source code compilation, do you have any reviews / perf tests showing that Zen5 would be bottle necked due to memory bandwidth beyond 16C?
DDR4. And not Zen5.Well, Handbrake does not scale with core count. This is well known.
Example: AnandTech's Threadripper 3000 review
You said. I asked for reviews / tests showing this for Zen5 beyond 16C. Still waiting.I said there is no high parallelism in common software build jobs.
The pure compilation stage scales well if an entire source tree has to be rebuilt, but that's a rare task in practice.
Yesn't. Speaking as a formerly more active gheymer myself, there's really 3 metrics:I am not interested in video games myself, hence never pay attention to that part of CPU reviews. What strikes me as odd is that most reviewers still focus on average FPS a lot. If average FPS were the most important thing to immersion into a game, then the conclusion of all of these reviews should be that all desktop CPUs perform alike: Average FPS are always good enough if screen resolution and game details are chosen according to GPU performance. — From what I understand, what matters additionally, and very much, to the experience of playing a video game are things like low percentiles of FPS, and frame time variance. Yet hardly any reviewer seems to put these prominently into the center of the video game part of CPU reviews.
(Especially ridiculous is when reviewers produce huge diagrams with a dozen of CPUs all giving absurdly high FPS. They should shrink those graphs into a one-line summary that all tested CPUs were good for more FPS than necessary.)
I was right, by the way. Actually, 5.1 was optimistic, looks like it's closer to 4.8 for real-world workloads.
You put it in the fmax column, you absolute clown.I was right, by the way. Actually, 5.1 was optimistic, looks like it's closer to 4.8 for real-world workloads.
